Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 102
Like Tree28Likes

Thread: Player Ratings thread

  1. #46
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    46,945
    Also re: Bancroft and Warner there is a (maybe unfair) perception that there was quite a bit of, well...

    do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
    who's going to make the violins?

    forever 63*

  2. #47
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Also re: Bancroft and Warner there is a (maybe unfair) perception that there was quite a bit of, well...

    Its a no win situation, score the runs and its downhill skiing , dont score the runs and they blew it.

    But what they did do is crush england and if it was downhill skiing then that is because the opposition was pathetically weak.

  3. #48
    Cricket Web Staff Member Woodster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    6,199
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    Its a no win situation, score the runs and its downhill skiing , dont score the runs and they blew it.

    But what they did do is crush england and if it was downhill skiing then that is because the opposition was pathetically weak.
    Obviously!
    http://batallday.blogspot.com/ - Cricket blog dedicated to domestic cricket.

  4. #49
    TNT
    TNT is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodster View Post
    Obviously!
    That means all the bowlers were trash, dont say individual bowlers were good when the batsmen has it so easy.


  5. #50
    Cricket Web Staff Member Woodster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    6,199
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    That means all the bowlers were trash, dont say individual bowlers were good when the batsmen has it so easy.
    I've no idea what you're talking about, but ok.

  6. #51
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,631
    Broad and Anderson had no support whatsoever from Woakes, Ball and the spinner. They bowled impeccably given the circumstances. If you want to blame anyone, blame the other three.

    Also, If you look at this match nobody got more than three.
    Future Proof

  7. #52
    U19 12th Man NotMcKenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da
    Posts
    286
    To stay scorecard-bound and simplistic, let's look at economies:

    Australia:

    Starc: 2.75, 3.18
    Hazelwood: 2.51, 2.87
    Cummins: 2.83, 1.81
    Lyon: 2.16, 2.79
    Smith: 2.66


    England:

    Anderson: 1.72, 2.45
    Broad: 1.96, 2.00
    Ali: 2.46, 5.75
    Woakes: 2.79, 4.18
    Ball: 4.27, 4.75
    Root: 2.22, 2.83

    Don't forget the large Stoneman/Vince partnership in England's first innings, or that Vince's innings was ended by a run out. Looking at the fall of wickets in the first innings of both teams might also prove an instructive exercise.

    And of course we get to perception time. I reckon that Cummins generally looked more threatening than Starc or Hazelwood (although I did not see the start of England's 2nd innings) but he picked up fewer wickets than the former and the same number as the latter. I also reckon that much of the time, other than Lyon's overs, we were more trying to 'wish' the batsmen out, and we didn't exactly run through them with a ruthless attack; our spinner appeared by far the most threatening, in contradistinction to England's in spite of Ali bowling on the same turning pitch. Some wickets, such as Stoneman being bowled in the 1st innings, or both of Bairstows, seemed to just come out of the blue or through poor choices by the batsman.

    In my opinion, on that pitch, we spent a good amount of time either waiting for wickets to come along or employing very obvious tactics to dismiss batsmen that rely very much on pace. England went about their attack in a similar vein from what I saw, but does not have an attack capable of Shane Warne's favoured tactic. Broad and Anderson bowled much better than the rest of their attack, and in the Aus. first innings looked as threatening in their opening spells as our opening bowlers did in England's first innings. The difference was that the rest of England's attack was not as threatening, allowing the batsmen to score with less pressure once they were off. In Australia's second innings, they still were, going on economy rates, much more difficult to score off than the rest of the English attack whilst defending a small total.

    Both times England batted, some of their players were able to ride out our attack, — which was more consistantly threatening than England's — for considerable periods: does that mean our bowlers bowled poorly during those periods? My answer is no. It is possible to bowl well and not pick up wickets. Factors beyond a bowler's performance in isolation can affect how many wickets a bowler takes.
    Take that often-quoted scenario: tie a batsmen down at one end, so he might go for risks against another. One could argue that the first bowler is bowling better, but he doesn't get a wicket for it if that situation occurs. A bowler can be gifted wickets through indiscipline on the batman's part, and dead pitches will only produce so many threatening deliveries, after which drying up runs and forcing mistakes becomes the tactic; but if more than half your attacks is poor, it is difficult to dry up runs. And with only ten wickets an innings to share between generally at least four bowlers, one may miss out through bad luck. Did all of other England's bowlers bowl poorly at Manchester in 1956 because collectively, they only picked up one wicket whilst Laker got nineteen?

    All these factors, and others, might just coincide as well. It is easy to say that, 'Bowler X should take more wickets,' 'Bowlers Y and Z need to step up and dictate terms,' [by bowling tightest and most threateningly of their attack?] without actually proposing anything specific.
    Last edited by NotMcKenzie; 27-11-2017 at 07:16 AM.
    OverratedSanity likes this.
    The actions of real people invariably thwart abstract theorising.

    Quote Originally Posted by Russell Domingo
    He spelt my name wrong for starters. He wrote one L instead of two.
    And tell me
    If it's still raining there in England

  8. #53
    International Debutant S.Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,631
    I would rate the bowlers,

    1/ Lyon
    2/ Cummins (but only for that devastating spell, the final twenty minutes of day 3)
    3/ Broad
    4/ Anderson
    5/ Hazlewood

    The rest of the bowlers were poor.

  9. #54
    International Captain stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    aus
    Posts
    6,283
    Cummins was clearly the best quick from either side and it wasn't even close. He was the only quick who came on and made you think a wicket was likely.

    Anderson and Broad were both very good and were better than Haze or Starc in some ways and worse in others.

    Haze was crap in the first innings. He was bowling a lot better in the second. Starc seems to have reverted to bowling filth combined with the occasional jaffa like he was doing two years ago.

    Anderson threatened the edge more than any bowler and Broad bowled well. But the pitch was such that no quicks outside Cummins looked like they were consistently threatening.

    Lyon was a hundred times more potent than Ali.

  10. #55
    Cricket Web Staff Member Woodster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    6,199
    Quote Originally Posted by stephen View Post
    Cummins was clearly the best quick from either side and it wasn't even close. He was the only quick who came on and made you think a wicket was likely.

    Anderson and Broad were both very good and were better than Haze or Starc in some ways and worse in others.

    Haze was crap in the first innings. He was bowling a lot better in the second. Starc seems to have reverted to bowling filth combined with the occasional jaffa like he was doing two years ago.

    Anderson threatened the edge more than any bowler and Broad bowled well. But the pitch was such that no quicks outside Cummins looked like they were consistently threatening.

    Lyon was a hundred times more potent than Ali.
    Hard to disagree with any of that!

  11. #56
    Evil Scotsman Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    523
    Posts
    29,532
    I take it at no point did Starc improve from the absolute junk he was sending down day 1?

    That Starc picked up any wickets after the Cook one was shameful.
    ​63*

    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    Come on Lancashire!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Let it be known for the record that the font in the top of the picture noted that Kohli was wearing Jimmy Choo shoes and Happy Socks

  12. #57
    Evil Scotsman Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    523
    Posts
    29,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabinet96 View Post
    Smith: 10 - It's probably only Australian dominance that can stop him surpassing Cook's 10/11 run tally.
    Bear in mind Cook only got 7 innings that series.

  13. #58
    International Captain TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    7,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    Bear in mind Cook only got 7 innings that series.
    Smith might get even less this series
    adub and indiaholic like this.

  14. #59
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    46,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Furball View Post
    I take it at no point did Starc improve from the absolute junk he was sending down day 1?

    That Starc picked up any wickets after the Cook one was shameful.
    He bowled some good spells in the second innings

  15. #60
    Cow
    Cow is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    WA / Jakarta
    Posts
    707
    Starc needs to see a dermatologist or change his diet. He needs to eat more low glycemic-index foods. Fruit, vegetables etc.

    If anyone from Cricket Australia or NSW cricket club are reading this thread they are more than welcome to PM me for free dietary advice to pass on to Mitchell.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Player Ratings thread
    By Howe_zat in forum Ashes 2015
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 27-08-2015, 07:05 AM
  2. Player Ratings - As We Go By....
    By morgieb in forum Ashes 2013/2014
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: 07-01-2014, 04:11 AM
  3. Player Ratings - As We Go By...
    By benchmark00 in forum Ashes 2010-2011
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 05-01-2011, 02:48 AM
  4. CW Player Ratings
    By nick-o in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 03:03 PM
  5. Ind Vs Pak - The player ratings
    By deeps in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-04-2005, 08:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •